MANGILAL versus SUGANCHAND RATHI

MANGILAL versus SUGANCHAND RATHI

A landlord does not have to show that the tenant is in arrears of rent on the date of suit; it is sufficient if the tenant has failed to pay arrears within one month of notice as per s. 4(a) of the Accommodation Act. Acceptance of rent after such notice does not by itself constitute waiver. Notice dated July 9, 1959, was valid under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the landlord's right to evict was upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Mangilal; Respondent: Suganchand Rathi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 October 1963
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Notice to Quit, Arrears of Rent, Waiver of Rights
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Eviction Notice to Quit Arrears of Rent Waiver of Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mangilal

Appellant

Suganchand Rathi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tenant must be in arrears of rent on the date of suit for eviction under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, s. 4(a)
  2. 2 Whether acceptance of arrears by the landlord constitutes waiver of right under notice under s. 4(a)
  3. 3 Whether notice served fulfilled requirements under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Ratio Decidendi

A landlord does not have to show that the tenant is in arrears of rent on the date of suit; it is sufficient if the tenant has failed to pay arrears within one month of notice as per s. 4(a) of the Accommodation Act. Acceptance of rent after such notice does not by itself constitute waiver. Notice dated July 9, 1959, was valid under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the landlord's right to evict was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decree of the High Court upheld
  • Appellant to pay costs